Second-hand Revelation: Some guy said God told him to tell you… (Jesus Christ, Earth)

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Sunstone, where did you get this from? That is not quite my understanding of what the Buddha said.

From the Kalama sutta:
Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea; "this is our teacher'. But, O Kalamas, when you know for youselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala), and wrong, and bad, then give them up ... And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome (kusala) and good, then accept them and abide by them.


I suppose it depends on what you mean by reason and common sense. But to my mind, reason implies logic and inference. The Buddha advocated empiricism, knowledge based on experience, not reason. Because reason by itself, if based on faulty premises, will lead to faulty conclusions. Everything must be grounded in the personal experience of its usefulness for oneself.

It's very much in keeping with what you said a couple of posts back about testing for its usefulness.

WHOOT! You found the quote I was looking for! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! (I went with that other quote because it was the closest I could find to the one I wanted).

[JayHawes]

1jo 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________
Ga 1:6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Ga 1:7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Ga 1:8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________
2pe 2:1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2pe 2:2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________
There always have been, and always will be fasle prophets. That however should cause us to doubt the huge amount of fulfilled prophecy in scripture.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

One could say that virtually every verse in the Bible, Qu’ran, or other holy text from a revealed religion could be preceded by "Some guy said God told him to tell you..." Millions have taken it for granted that an omnipotent God chose second-hand revelation as a primary method to communicate to us.

One seeming paradox of second-hand revelation is that God supposedly had a message for all of humanity, but God told just a few guys. For unexplained reasons, God apparently stopped communicating that way from then on, putting the burden on them to be messenger boys. Well, perhaps God didn’t stop entirely, as we continue to get claims of revelation periodically, but many revelations claim to be the final one and pronounce dire warnings to any who claim later ones. That might explain the tendency for many to accept ancient revelation over modern revelation.

If God uses a few selected scribes to reveal all-important truths to the rest of us, we are essentially stuck taking their word for it. To me, it seems ironic and contradictory that God allegedly would want a personal relationship but then use bronze-age tribesmen as agents to obtain it.

Why would an omnipotent being choose this method in the first place, with all the risks of translation error, copy error, miscommunication, cross-cultural differences, appearance of favoritism, inherent limits of human language, and so on? It can’t be more trouble to simply speak to us directly, if omnipotence is a reality.

Why are conflicting revelations allowed?

Some claim that the path to eternal salvation lies in second-hand revelation. If so, wouldn't that place your salvation into the hands a fallible human? It seems odd that this arguably most important of truths would be communicated indirectly by fallible humans, especially when God is said to be omnipotent.

Would the originating force behind the entire universe choose a method so fraught with potential for trouble? As if God needed a spokesguy... In the churches of my youth, we simply took it for granted and never gave it a second thought. Is that common?

I like what you had to say. I can’t say I disagree with any of it, but the questions you pose tend to put the blame on God’s absence in human affairs rather than man’s failure to recognize God’s presence. The answer is, I think, easily explained if you think of the brain as receiver and the infinite God always broadcasting his presence and reality.

Even when God’s presence is felt or perceived, the reception comes through a receiver tuned by preexisting ideas, expectations and culture to receive specific signals. Other parties sharing a similar setting may have too much background noise to hear the same message themselves, but what they hear from the “prophet” or read in a holy text has enough of a familiar flavor for the conscious mind to recognize. Parties coming from different backgrounds will hear something different or nothing at all. Receivers may even be damaged in a way so that while the signals are received clearly, they cannot be cogently processed.

Never lose sight of the fact that God is infinite and the receivers are limited not only by their capacity, but by how they are tuned. “May you live in interesting times” is an ancient Chinese curse, and boy, do we live in interesting times! In today’s busy world, there is a lot to distract us from recognizing God’s presence. In the Moslem world, it’s the West; in the West, it’s everything else. All this background noise prevents people from hearing God’s universal and undifferentiated presence.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I think He speaks through designated spokesmen because He doesn't want each of us interpreting His words on our own. Just look at Christianity, for instance. It started with one man, Jesus Christ who built His Church on a foundation of prophets and apostles. He would direct His Church through them after He ascended into Heaven. Unfortunately, most if not all of them were martyred for their beliefs. And as Paul had predicted would happen were the foundation to crumble, men were once again "as children, cast about by every wind of doctrine." There are now more than 30,000 Christian denominations in the world. The vast, vast majority of them base their beliefs on the Bible alone, and yet they interpret it so differently from each other. With "some guy God tells to tell you things," there is much less chance of the doctrines given to previous men being misinterpreted. [/font] Some people would prefer to just decide for themselves how to interpret the Bible. That's their prerogative. Others are more comfortable knowing that God speaks directly to those of His choosing, instructs them as to what He wants the rest of us to know, and then provides the rest of us with the guidance of the Holy Ghost to confirm that what we are told is from God.

No offense, but this is a great post if you're trying to convince me that God is not worthy of worship. Someone who speaks through "designated spokesmen" is a respecter of persons and not someone I can think of as a loving Father.

No. God is here for everyone equally according to their capacity and receptivity or not at all.

[ayani]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

God is here for everyone equally according to their capacity and receptivity or not at all.

i would definately agree with that. the idea of a "prophet" has always bothered me... likely because in so many sources, the prophet will list off peoples who are condemned to hell, who do not listen to God, who are absurd in their beliefs. is there really anyone to whom God can not speak? i am wary of one who is so quick to write others off, likely because something i struggle with personally is to be careful in assuming i can figure out a given situation with objectivity and truth.

i remember talking to a friend who is Muslim, about a mutual friend who was an atheist.

me: "do you want Aybars to go to hell?"
him: "no! i love this guy!"
me: "so you would not send him to hell?"
him: "no, he is a pain in the *** to me, but i would not send him to hell."
me: "so if you love him enough to not send him to hell, how can you assume that God, who is, to you, Al-Ghafar and Al-Rahim, would not love him enough to save him from hell? is God's love limited by a creed?"

[John Grey]

In the infamous words of Lumbergh (Office Space) "Uh, Yeeaah... by the way..." I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a bias in this conversation; one only needs to read my blog to know why.

I believe that most received holy text are valid, but I also strongly believe that they are imperfect. I also believe that the reason why few people write received holy text is because they are simply not listening closely enough, or they doubt and fear what had been written, throwing it away. Why is it that so many prophets insist that their particular revelation is the final word? It's a matter of conviction and awe; a prophet's text will always hold greater meaning for him then it will for anyone else.

If it can be assumed that God does exist, then a divine text represents a very special moment in the prophet's life. If God does not exist, and writer of the text is honest in his conviction, then the text represents emotional and psychological revelations of the supposed-prophet's deepest beliefs. Either way, sharing the text is like putting your heart on the sidewalk for everyone to step on; they would like dearly for others to take them seriously.

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by John Grey

Either way, sharing the text is like putting your heart on the sidewalk for everyone to step on; they would like dearly for others to take them seriously.

Taking them seriously as a personal experience is fine. It would be like relating a dream. I can appreciate a cool experience. The point I start to twitch is when the person says there's a message to relay to me. There's just no need or advantage to a game of cosmic pass-it-on.

[John Grey]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

Taking them seriously as a personal experience is fine. It would be like relating a dream. I can appreciate a cool experience. The point I start to twitch is when the person says there's a message to relay to me. There's just no need or advantage to a game of cosmic pass-it-on.

I see your point and I understand how that would be annoying. I'm not justifying that behavior, just trying to help you understand why prophets in the past have been so persistent about their message.

[Inky]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

The answer is, I think, easily explained if you think of the brain as receiver and the infinite God always broadcasting his presence and reality.

Even when God’s presence is felt or perceived, the reception comes through a receiver tuned by preexisting ideas, expectations and culture to receive specific signals. Other parties sharing a similar setting may have too much background noise to hear the same message themselves, but what they hear from the “prophet” or read in a holy text has enough of a familiar flavor for the conscious mind to recognize. Parties coming from different backgrounds will hear something different or nothing at all.

This is close to how I see it. One reason I am a Quaker is because I believe that we all have personal communication with God, and we need to trust what we "hear" from God more than we trust secondhand sources. In Quaker terms the receiver you described is called the "inward light".

God's messages can be different from person to person, and I think one way S/he makes it easier for us is to communicate in ways we will easily recognize. Someone who is raised in one religion will have an easier time in prayer and revelation if the message comes in that religious "flavor", if that makes sense.